In elections that begin this week, voters in 10 states will be required to present photo identification before casting ballots — the first major test of voter-ID laws after years of legal challenges arguing that the measures are designed to suppress voting. The first election is Tuesday in Texas, followed by nine other primaries running through early September that will set the ballot for the midterm elections in November.
The Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus is asking U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to block the state’s plan to start using a voter identification law. “The law adversely affects Mississippi’s most vulnerable population, namely, the elderly, minorities and disabled,” the caucus wrote a letter dated Wednesday and released Thursday. Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann says the June 3 federal primaries will be the first time Mississippi voters will be required to show a driver’s license or other form of government-issued photo identification at the polls. Mississippians approved a voter ID constitutional amendment in 2011, and legislators put the mandate into law in 2012.
The question of whether voters should have to carry a photo ID to the polls could be decided on the ballot in 2014. The Missouri House on Thursday approved measures to require photo identification, but the changes to the state’s constitution require approval by voters. Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said he would like to put the issue to a vote of the people. Proponents of a requirement that voters present a photo ID or cast a provisional ballot argue it will increase the integrity of the election process. Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, sponsored the constitutional amendment. “We deserve the protection of photo identification at the moment the vote is cast,” Cox said. But opponents point out there has not been a documented case of voter impersonation fraud in Missouri in years.
Missouri House Republicans are trying again to enact legislation that would require voters to show photo identification before casting ballots, and they’re hoping the courts or the Democratic governor don’t stand in the way this time. The House gave first-round approval to measures Tuesday that could lead to a voter photo ID requirement. Previous attempts have stalled in the Senate, been vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon or blocked by judges. As they have in the past, Republican supporters argued Tuesday that a photo ID requirement would protect the integrity of elections and prevent fraud at the ballot box. “Unfortunately it is a reality in life and in modern America that there is voter fraud,” said one of the measure’s sponsors, Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia.
A member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s conservative majority said Tuesday she’s troubled by the state’s voter photo ID requirements, saying it’s not fair that people who lack identification may have to pay for supporting documents to obtain it. The League of Women Voters and the NAACP’s Milwaukee branch have filed separate lawsuits challenging the Republican-authored voter ID mandate. Both cases have wound their way to the Supreme Court; the justices spent more than three hours listening to oral arguments in a packed hearing room Tuesday. The lawsuits face an uphill fight given the court’s ideological makeup. Surprisingly, though, Justice Patience Roggensack said the provisions were troubling because people who lack acceptable IDs for voting would have to pay for copies of supporting documents, such as birth certificates, to get them. “It’s still a payment to the state to be able to vote,” Roggensack said. “That bothers me.”
A federal judge this afternoon held off on ruling whether 13 North Carolina state legislators should comply with subpoenas requesting documents in connection with a trio of lawsuits challenging a voting law passed last year. Magistrate Judge Joi Elizabeth Peak also told parties in the suit to develop a plan to produce electronic documents from the state, and told defense attorneys to produce documents related to how the law is being implemented. The U.S. Department of Justice, along with a group of plaintiffs that include the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, is contesting the Voter Identification Verification Act (VIVA).
A lawsuit has been filed in District Court to block attempts at a petition initiative that would require voters to show identification before casting ballots. The suit, filed in Carson City on Wednesday, is aimed at stopping former U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle and her supporters from gathering signatures to qualify the petition for the 2014 election. It argues the proposed constitutional amendment illegally commands the Legislature to enact the law and intrudes on powers reserved for the legislative branch.
A federal judge tried Friday to speed up the flow of documents in three lawsuits challenging North Carolina’s voter ID and elections overhaul law. Several advocacy groups, voters and the U.S. government sued in August and September to block provisions of the law that they argue are racially discriminatory and violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Those provisions include a photo identification requirement to voter in person, reducing the number of early voting days from 17 to 10 and eliminating same-day voter registration during the early-voting period. U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Joi Peake already had determined in December the combined lawsuits wouldn’t go to trial until mid-2015. However, plaintiffs’ attorneys are now anxious to collect documents and data they argue lawyers for state agencies and Gov. Pat McCrory aren’t giving them. They face a May deadline to seek an injunction blocking enforcement of the provisions for the November elections. An injunction hearing likely will occur in early July. Voter ID isn’t required until 2016, but preparations already have started.
Plaintiffs in a trio of suits challenging a voter law passed last year are contending that the governor’s office and the state Board of Elections have failed to turn over documents pertinent to their cases. Attorneys will gather in U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem Friday for a hearing to determine whether the defendants should produce the materials. A federal judge will also hear arguments about whether subpoenas seeking documents from 13 legislators should be quashed. The documents in question relate to “the consideration and implementation” as well as “the costs and other impacts” of the Voter Identification Verification Act (VIVA). The act, signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory in August, requires that voters show a government-issued photo ID at the polls beginning in 2016.
Oral arguments in two cases challenging the state’s voter photo identification (ID) law are scheduled for 9:45 a.m. on Feb. 25. In January, the court asked the parties to advise the court in writing, if they believed arguments in the two cases should be consolidated. The responses from the two parties indicated they did not wish the cases to be consolidated. The two cases are: No. 2012AP584-AC – League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Scott Walker L.C.#2011CV4669/ and No. 2012AP1652 – Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Scott Walker L.C.#2011CV5492. Both the League of Women Voters and the Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP have challenged Wisconsin’s voter photo ID law. In both cases, Dane County judges struck down the law.
A state law that requires voters to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls has been used only once since Governor Scott Walker signed it in 2011. Now known as Act 23, the Republican-backed law has seen its fair share of criticism. Including arguments that the law alienates minorities and the poor. Federal and state lawsuits have put its use on hold. Republican State Rep. Andre Jacque, R-De Pere, stands behind the law as a way of combating voter fraud. “The election that it was in place here, for Wisconsin, the training went well, everything worked well for that election,” said Jacque. Critics say the law forces those without state-issued photo IDs to get one from the DMV – albeit for free.
A proposed voter ID bill in Missouri could disenfranchise 220,000 registered voters, according to an impact report released on Tuesday by Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander. The report notes that passing House Bill 1073, which introduces new limitations on acceptable types of voter identification, would make Missouri’s voter laws some of the strictest in the country, alongside Indiana and Texas. To pass the bill, the state would first have to change their constitution. “Our state has one of the strongest voting rights provisions in the constitution anywhere in the country,” Kander explained on Sunday’s Melissa Harris-Perry. “The Republican strategy here is to amend our state constitution to weaken the voting rights provision and then pass the most extreme version of this kind of law in the country.”
North Carolina’s recent voting law changes will disproportionately affect black voters in the state, according to a study published Wednesday by Dartmouth University. “The study provides powerful ammunition for the pending legal challenges,” says Brenda Wright, a voting rights expert with the liberal think tank Demos. “It shows that virtually every key feature of North Carolina’s election legislation will disproportionately cut back on registration and voting by African Americans in North Carolina as compared to whites.” North Carolina was once covered by the Voting Rights Act’s requirement that states and other jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting submit their voting law changes to the Justice Department for approval. After the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional last year the formula for determining which jurisdictions were covered by that requirement, North Carolina’s Republican-dominated legislature passed a package of voting law restrictions.
Dallas County Commissioners are discussing whether to pony up more money to reach voters whose photo IDs don’t match their elections records. The Democratic county judge says it’s an effort to make sure everyone who’s registered gets to vote, but the commission’s lone Republican thinks there’s another reason. Last November was the first test of Texas’ new voter ID law, and in Dallas County one in five had to sign affidavits before they could cast ballots. They had to swear to their identities because the names on their photo ID’s didn’t exactly match their names on the county’s registration list. Election officials believe at least 195,000 registered voters in Dallas County have name discrepancies that will delay their voting in March and November.
As the March primary election approaches, election officials throughout the state are gearing up for potential problems. This March 4 primary will be the biggest election since the state’s Voter ID law, which requires voters to show government issued photo identification at the polls, went into effect last year. Dallas election officials have sent out hundreds of thousands of notes to voters informing them of potential problems with the way their names are listed on photo ID cards versus the way they are listed in the voter registration database. Tarrant County officials chose not to sent out notes, saying any name problem can be handled at the polls. “We are taking a different approach and we will let voters handle it at the polling place,” said Steve Raborn, Tarrant County’s election administrator. “You could send these postcards out and ask people if they want to match their names beforehand. “My greater concern is that it might cause voter confusion and could even make someone not vote.”
Dallas County officials are looking at doubling down on voter outreach, days after launching perhaps the state’s most extensive attempt to alert voters to potential identification problems resulting from Texas’ new voter ID law. County commissioners will examine on Tuesday a proposal to spend up to an additional $165,000 on efforts to resolve voters’ complications with improper photo ID and name discrepancies between required forms of identification. The infusion — which won’t be voted on for at least another week — would come on top of $145,000 that commissioners approved in October to spend on mailings aimed at clearing up lingering conflicts and confusion ahead of the March primary. That first allocation resulted in the mailing on Jan. 24 of notices to 195,000 voters about the ID law’s provision that a voter’s name on a valid photo ID must exactly match the name listed in the voter registration database. It remains to be seen specifically how the extra funds would be used, as officials offered on Friday varying descriptions of possible outreach efforts. But given the voter ID law’s hot-button status, Tuesday’s commissioners court meeting figures to be a heated affair.
A judge made a host of mistakes in deciding to throw out the Pennsylvania’s requirement that voters display photo identification, lawyers for Gov. Tom Corbett argued in a court filing Monday. The team of private lawyers and the attorney general’s office asked in 39 pages of post-trial arguments that the law be reinstated, the decision revised or a new trial ordered. The filing says Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley wrongly decided the law was unconstitutional because of how it was implemented, and took issue with his rejection of a Department of State-created ID card. “The statute cannot be declared facially unconstitutional based solely on flaws found in the executive’s reading or administration of the statute,” Corbett’s lawyers argued. McGinley ruled Jan. 17 that the law did not further the goal of free and fair elections, saying it lacked a viable means to make photo IDs easily available.
Nearly 200,000 Dallas County voters have been told of possible problems with their identification, as county elections officials work to resolve complications arising from Texas’ new voter ID law before the March primary. The county elections department mailed out letters on Friday to alert voters to potential conflicts resulting from one part of the contentious law: the requirement that a voter’s name on a valid photo ID must exactly match the name listed in the voter registration database. That requirement could be particularly nettlesome for women, who are more likely to have changed their names after getting married or for other reasons, such as adopting their maiden names as middle names. The issue surfaced in the November election, when some voters complained about having to deal at the polls with name discrepancies. Those hiccups didn’t prevent anyone from voting. Elections officials created a relatively simple way to resolve the problem on the spot, but that added time to the act of voting. The letters — sent at a cost of $79,000 — represent a push by the county to allow voters to square things away before the March 4 primary. There’s a short form to fill out to reconcile differences between how names are listed on photo IDs and in the county’s voter database. The mailing offers the best glimpse yet of the scope and nature of ID problems among Dallas County’s 1.2 million registered voters.
The nationwide fight over voter ID laws is heading next to the Show Me State. Missouri Republicans are working to amend their state’s constitution as part of an aggressive push to require photo identification at the polls. The GOP-controlled legislature held a hearing Monday on two voter ID bills. One would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, which, if approved by voters, would allow for a voter ID law. The second bill, to go into effect only if the amendment passes, would impose voter ID. The two-pronged approach is needed because of a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling which found that voter ID laws violate the state constitution’s guarantee of a right to vote. A Pennsylvania judge this month struck down that state’s ID law on similar grounds.
The Corbett Administration signaled its intent Monday to keep fighting for a strong voter identification law in Pennsylvania by asking Commonwealth Court to reconsider a judge’s decision striking the law down. The 2012 law – considered one of the more stringent of its type in the nation and requiring nearly all voters to show photo identification when they went to the polling place – was struck down by Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley earlier this month. McGinley said the mandatory photo requirement placed an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote. He also asserted the state had not been able to prove that it was necessary. Because McGinley’s decision followed a trial last summer on complaints brought by voters, Corbett’s first move was to file post-trial motions raising appellate issues before the full court. Under Pennsylvania’s rules, a trial court must have the chance to review its decision before an appeal could be taken to a higher court.
College students in Tennessee could be barred from casting a ballot in upcoming elections under the state’s new voter ID law. That is, unless they own a gun. Last week, the Tennessee Senate State & Local Government Committee rejected a bill that would have allowed valid photo IDs issued by any public institution of higher education to be used at the polls. The vote on Tuesday was 7-2, with all Republicans opposing and both Democrats voting in favor. No Republicans on the committee offered testimony against the bill, other than Sen. Mark Norris (R) who noted that the courts had upheld the voter ID law in its current form and said he did “not think it was a good idea” to change it to include university IDs.
A Missouri Senate panel heard legislation Monday that would require voters to show photo identification at polling places amid warnings from the state’s top election official that 220,000 registered voters would no longer be able to cast ballots if the measure passes. Similar measures have been passed in other states, but they have faced legal challenges. And Missouri’s previous efforts have failed in the courts. The measure’s sponsor told the Senate Elections Committee that Missouri needs to require voters to show a government-issued ID to preserve the integrity of state elections. “We need to make sure everyone’s vote counts. It should be one person, one vote and without an ID requirement we can’t make that happen,” said sponsoring Sen. Will Kraus, R-Lee’s Summit. Opponents contend there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud and that such measures disenfranchise voters.
A judge made a host of mistakes in deciding to throw out the Pennsylvania’s requirement that voters display photo identification, lawyers for Gov. Tom Corbett argued in a court filing Monday. The team of private lawyers and the attorney general’s office asked in 39 pages of post-trial arguments that the law be reinstated, the decision revised or a new trial ordered. The filing says Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley wrongly decided the law was unconstitutional because of how it was implemented, and took issue with his rejection of a Department of State-created ID card. “The statute cannot be declared facially unconstitutional based solely on flaws found in the executive’s reading or administration of the statute,” Corbett’s lawyers argued.
This year’s elections have run into a couple of snags because legislators forgot to dot some i’s and cross some t’s. In one case, the state’s new law requiring voters to present a photo ID at the ballot box or include some form of identification when voting absentee caused a problem in the Jonesboro state Senate race. The voter ID law was passed in 2013 amidst a political brouhaha, with Republicans saying it is needed to prevent fraud, and Democrats saying its real purpose is to make it harder for poor people to vote for Democrats. The law allows voters at the polls that don’t have an ID to vote provisionally and then present one by noon on the Monday after the election, but it is silent on what to do about absentee voters who don’t provide an ID.
The special election for the vacant state Senate District 21 seat could have been quite controversial if it had been closer. Perhaps the result will at least provide state officials with a hint that they should be prepared for disputed election results under a new law. Since Saturday the Craighead County Election Commission has been publishing a one-third page advertisement in the classified section of The Jonesboro Sun aimed especially at voters who cast an absentee ballot in the Jan. 14 special election but failed to provide the identification required under Act 595 of 2013.
Nebraskans could register to vote online and would have to present a photo ID in certain situations under a pair of bills that will have a public hearing next week. Sen. Bob Krist of Omaha has introduced three bills relating to elections and voting on behalf of Secretary of State John Gale. The Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee will hear testimony on the bills on Thursday. One of the bills would allow Nebraskans with a driver’s license or state identification card to register to vote or to update their voting information online. Thirteen states have online voter registration, Gale said.
A state judge in Pennsylvania has struck down the state’s new Voter ID law. Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley ruled that the law, which has already been delayed by the courts and was not implemented in the 2012 election, is unconstitutional. The ruling sets up a key showdown in the state Supreme Court over the controversial law. “Voter ID laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal,” McGinley wrote in his decision, adding: “Based on the foregoing, this Court declares the Voter ID Law photo ID provisions and related implementation invalid…”
A judge in Pennsylvania struck down one of the most restrictive voter identification laws in the country on Friday, in a victory for civil rights campaigners who are seeking to block voter eligibility rules they claim are discriminatory. Commonwealth court judge Bernard McGinley concluded the state’s voter ID law, introduced by Republican-controlled state legislature in 2012, disenfranchised “hundreds of thousands” of voters who could not easily meet the requirements set by the state. “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the voter ID law does not further this goal,” the judge said, adding: “Disenfranchising voters through no fault of the voter himself is plainly unconstitutional.” The new law required voters to present photo identification proving their eligibility to vote, replacing other proof-of-address documents such as paychecks or bills. Photo identification had proven difficult for many voters to obtain, despite the state’s promises to the contrary. In one particularly damning section of his ruling, Judge McGinley found there was no evidence the legislation was even intended to stamp out voter fraud, which was the justification given by state lawmakers when they passed the law.
Lawmakers announced Thursday bipartisan legislation that would restore key protections of the Voting Rights Act that were thrown out by the Supreme Court last summer. The bill would also establish new criteria to determine whether states need to seek federal approval for proposed changes to voting rules. The legislation is a response to the high court’s ruling in June that Southern states had been unfairly singled out by the long-standing formula used to determine which states must seek federal “pre-clearance” before changing their voting laws. The proposed legislation would establish a new trigger. Any state that is found to have committed five voting violations over a 15-year period would be subject to federal scrutiny of any new voting laws for a period of 10 years. It would also allow states to create “reasonable” photo identification laws. Four states would be subject to the law immediately upon enactment: Georgia, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
In a strongly worded decision, a state judge on Friday struck down Pennsylvania’s 2012 law requiring voters to produce a state-approved photo ID at the polls, setting up a potential Supreme Court confrontation that could have implications for other such laws across the country. The judge, Bernard L. McGinley of Commonwealth Court, ruled that the law hampered the ability of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians to cast their ballots, with the burden falling most heavily on elderly, disabled and low-income residents, and that the state’s reason for the law — that it was needed to combat voter fraud — was not supported by the facts. “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election,” the judge wrote in his 103-page decision. “The voter ID law does not further this goal.”